Sham court

11 12 2013

PPT does not know if former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana was serious or was simply testing the sham court, also referred to as the Constitutional Court, when he lodged a complaint “accusing Mr Suthep [Thaugsuban] of violating Section 68 of the charter.”Whatever was the aim, his complaint demonstrated yet again, that this court is a politicized court.

The Bangkok Post article states that Section 68 “prohibits attempts to overthrow the monarchy and unconstitutional efforts to seize power.” This isn’t entirely accurate. The constitution states, at the appropriate paragraph:

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

There is a difference from the Post’s interpretation, but, like the kangaroo court, this is probably lost on the writer.

But back to Thailand’s political court. Readers will recall that a few weeks ago the court struck down a parliamentary effort to amend the constitution, following the letter of the basic law in doing this. Engaging in political decision-making, the royalist judges used this same article of the constitution.

Photo form Black Shirt Main State Tuesday Dec 10thSo if changing the constitution entirely legally through the mechanisms set out in the constitution is unconstitutional, what of Suthep’s attempt at a street coup, where his stated plan is to change the currently existing “democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.”

Of course, the mad royalists at the Constitutional Court use their best double standards, leap into their parallel universe, and decide that this could not possibly be in contravention of the constitution:

The court’s chief spokesman, Pimol Thampitakpong, said Mr Suthep was involved in peaceful and unarmed rallies which were permitted under the constitution.

As for the protesters’ seizure of government offices, which Mr Ruangkrai said was part of Mr Suthep’s unconstitutional attempt to topple the Yingluck administration, Mr Pimol said the seizures had already ended and the House was now dissolved, so there were no grounds to claims the move violated the charter.

The judges probably agree with the Chulalongkorn University students shown in the copyrighted picture above (apologies to the photographer for filching it, but it is a photo we had to use), demonstrating against the rule of law; the judges, though, seem to not know what the law is, not even in the charter that is a part of their name.

Frankly, these “judges” make a mockery of the law. They make a joke of Thailand’s legal system.


Actions

Information




%d bloggers like this: